Multilingualism meets plurilingualism: Reconceptualizing linguistic diversity in education in Africa

• In Event: Language Issues SIG Highlighted Session: Debating education in linguistically diverse contexts

Abstract

Objectives
Theoretical discussions about linguistic diversity in education is often characterized by real or imagined tensions, such as between orientations, nature of language contacts and their outcomes (including extinction), and the locus of language policymaking (micro vs. macro). While there is now overwhelming evidence in support of an affirmative view of linguistic diversity, there continues to be tension among pro-multilingualism experts. This study examines the tension between the nature of language and the theories about language policy and practice. This tension is evident in some recent move to abandon “multilingualism” for “plurilingualism.” While multilingualism prescribes the additive inclusion of all languages throughout the schooling process, plurilingualism seeks to defend the intermixing of multiple languages in the day-to-day communication as a norm in the classroom. Those who support plurilingualism suggest that although linguistic studies demonstrate that language is a fluid and emergent social practice, the advocacy for mother language-based multilingual education (MLB-MLE) continues to view languages as finite systems with fixed boundaries.

This study uses ethnography of language use in multilingual contexts to probe this tension. It monitors actual language use in urban contexts in Botswana, Kenya and Nigeria as well as online discussions on social network sites. It then uses these data to analyze the claims that multilingualism and plurilingualism are fundamentally opposed in their representations of linguistic practices. The findings suggest that instead of polarizing multilingualism and plurilingualism, scholars must clarify the core claims of multilingualism to eliminate its implicit fixities.

Theoretical Framework
The specific conceptual claims of this paper are twofold. First, explicit language policies and practices are based on more fundamental epistemological assumptions about the nature of linguistic practices and of language use in communicative contexts. Therefore, any effort to address linguistic discrimination, a key trigger point for much scholarship on multilingualism, must contend with these assumptions. Second, while experts have formulated an array of theoretical orientations to language planning, it is questionable how these orientations accurately represent the realities they purport to describe. These two claims are embodied in the recent effort to pit multilingualism against plurilingualism, especially within the African context.

Analytical Method and Data Sources
This study draws from four data sources. The first reviews the theoretical tension about the nature of language and its implications for current language policy and practice in education. The second uses ethnographic data from urban settings in Botswana, Kenya and Nigeria to examine the descriptive accuracy of the claims of multilingualism and plurilingualism. The third analyzes language use in online social network media (Facebook) to understand representations of linguistic diversity among younger and more technology-prone generation. Finally, it uses unstructured interviews to seek language users’ perspectives on their linguistic practices. While the theoretical analysis for this study has been ongoing since summer 2014, on-site data collection in all countries will occur between January and February 2015.

Results
Ongoing analysis suggests that those who advocate for plurilingualism over multilingualism often associate multilingualism with transitional multilingualism, which span early- to late-exit multilingualism and entail the addition, transition from/to, and possibly maintenance of individuated languages as media of instruction. Currently, multilingualism discourse suggests that MLB-MLE and transitional multilingualism are different only as graduated progressive models on a multilingualism continuum. However, we find that MLB-MLE and transitional multilingualism are not polar options on a continuum but are fundamentally different in kind. Based on studies conducted by Canagarajah and Suresh as well as Makoni and his colleagues, there is substantive evidence for the indeterminacy and fluidity of linguistic practices in ways that render the individuation and enumeration of languages (common in multilingualism discourse) descriptively meaningless. However, this does not justify the implicit demand for a rejection of multilingualism in place of other concepts. Rather, a more concerted effort to dissociate MLB-MLE from transitional multilingualism offers a more adequate conceptual and practical strategy.

Scholarly Significance
It is noteworthy that decades-long affirmative scholarly advocacy on the linguistic, pedagogical, psychological, cultural and political benefits of multilingualism have yet to witness widespread shifts in educational policy and practice that support MLB-MLE. The majority of multilingual societies continue to emphasize monolingualism or transitional multilingualism. Therefore, the claim that current discourse on multilingualism is self-defeating is worthy of serious attention by scholars, policymakers and practitioners. This suggests the need for considering a new and ambitious research agenda that seeks to understand the educational and social implications of abandoning the practice of enumerating languages to embracing the indeterminacy and fluidity of linguistic practices within communicative contexts.

Authors

• Desmond Odugu, Lake Forest College

• Camille Lemieux, Lake Forest College

• Chidiebere Eya, Institute for Research and International Studies